Ginsberg Says Gore Won't Rush Unproven Missile Defense System

(Campaign adviser outlines Democratic foreign policy priorities)
(2,520)
(This interview appeared in the September, 2000 issue of U.S. Foreign
Policy Agenda, published by the Office of International Information
Programs, U.S. Department of State. Together with a companion piece by
an adviser to Governor George W. Bush, it illustrates the approaches
being taken to foreign policy in the 2000 elections by the Democratic
and Republican campaigns respectively. There are no republication
restrictions on the interview, conducted by staff writer Ralph
Dannheisser.)
A Democratic View: Facing Key Foreign Policy Challenges
An Interview with Ambassador Marc Ginsberg
(Ginsberg is senior coordinating adviser on foreign policy to Vice
President Al Gore)
QUESTION: In your view, how much of a role is foreign policy playing
in the current presidential campaign and, more broadly, how much of a
role does it ever play?
GINSBERG: Generally, foreign policy does not play a significant role
in presidential election campaigns, with the exception of times when
there are international crises -- conflicts that concern the American
people -- such as the Korean conflict in the 1950s, and, of course,
the war in Vietnam. These are issues that were clearly important to
the American public during elections held at those times. In this
campaign, the American people are clearly focused on domestic issues.
They are content with the status quo, by and large. The world is at
peace, and Americans -- while stationed abroad -- are not in active
ground combat, and consequently, foreign policy and national security
issues are playing a peripheral role.
Q: Notwithstanding that general situation, are there any foreign
policy issues that could influence the outcome of this election to any
degree?
GINSBERG: Well, no one can predict the future. The key issue that will
affect the election is the comparative experience of Vice President
Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman versus George W. Bush and Dick
Cheney. On a pure empirical scale, voters need to compare the 30 years
of significant national security experience that the Vice President
brings to the table with Governor Bush's more limited experience in
this field.
Q: Beyond what you see as the experience gap, are there any foreign
policy issues that divide the Democratic and Republican parties or the
candidates on philosophical grounds?
GINSBERG: Oh, absolutely. The Republican Party and George Bush are
focused on the Cold War and on their achievements in the Gulf War.
They have not focused on the challenges that we face in a post-Cold
War era in which the United States now finds itself at the peak of its
authority around the world in a new global age. We have challenges
that we face that are what we would call transglobal, which require
the United States to deal more effectively with areas of the world in
potential conflict. George Bush and his party have shown no interest
in addressing the new security challenges at their source. So that's
the first issue.
The second issue is the unilateralism of the Republican Party. The
inherent inconsistencies in the Republican platform suggest that,
while on the one hand George Bush talks about a policy of distinct
American internationalism, on the two key issues that concern our
allies and our alliances abroad and the integrity of those alliances
(the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and National Missile Defense),
George Bush is prepared to act unilaterally.
This represents a fundamental disagreement between the Republican and
Democratic parties. The Democrats and Al Gore are not prepared to rush
headlong into a National Missile Defense system that hasn't been
proven and tested. We also favor passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. So on areas of nuclear security as well as
alliance-strengthening, the Republicans are prepared to act
unilaterally; the Democrats believe in engaging our allies and working
together with them to address and resolve these issues. That's a clear
distinction between us and them.
Q: So you'd see those nuclear issues as the most significant area of
disagreement?
GINSBERG: Yes.
Q: Agreement or disagreement aside, what foreign policy issues are of
key importance to the Democratic Party at this time?
GINSBERG: Well, first and foremost, the most important issue is
continuing the prosperity at home by maintaining stability abroad. Our
economy is increasingly dependent on stability in foreign markets and
the economic prosperity of our key allies. Al Gore wants to continue
to build on the track record of helping our allies resolve their
international financial difficulties -- whether it be the Mexican peso
crisis, whether it be the Southeast Asian financial crises, it's a way
of insuring that American prosperity continues. So that's first.
Second, and not any less important, is obviously maintaining American
security and insuring that our military continues to remain strong, is
capable of dealing with and addressing the issues that challenge the
United States. In coming years, that means helping to enhance the
quality of life for our men and women in uniform, ensuring that the
revolutionary technology that the United States is producing in this
information age is available to them and ensuring that the military is
able to do the job that it's called upon to do as we address the new
global issues that we face.
Q: From what you've said, it appears to be your view that economic
security issues have come to be at least co-equal with military
security.
GINSBERG: Oh, they go hand in hand. Americans will not feel secure
economically or military unless we use our global leadership to
prevent conflicts that undermine American security and our financial
markets. We are increasingly interdependent in a globalizing era where
our economic and military strengths go hand in hand.
Q: Given the low profile of foreign affairs issues in election
campaigns, do you think either or both parties could do a better job
somehow of handling those issues during campaigns?
GINSBERG: Well, I don't subscribe to the view that we have not focused
on foreign policy. What I said in my earlier comments was that
generally foreign policy doesn't play an important role in the
campaign. The Vice President has given several major foreign policy
addresses, the most important of which was in Boston in April, in
which he spelled out his policy initiatives for when he becomes
President. His policy of forward engagement was articulated. He also
addressed the West Point graduating class, where he articulated a new
policy toward America's military. George Bush has given several
speeches on foreign policy. There have been some questions, of course,
from the press on such issues as National Missile Defense and the
Middle East peace process. So as the campaign progresses into higher
gear, I'm sure that there will be more issues relating to national
security and foreign policy. So, on the one hand, foreign policy is
not going to be pivotal in this election, but the American people
certainly remain interested in these issues and continue to ask us
about them, judging by the sheer volume of media inquiries that each
campaign receives.
Q: How do you view the role, the character of security policy in the
elections now that the Cold War is past?
GINSBERG: Well, as I said earlier, the United States faces new
challenges that we didn't face in the Cold War era. That's again the
major difference between the Republicans, who are stuck in the mindset
of the Cold War, and a Democratic party and a President and a Vice
President who have been prepared to address the new security
challenges that the United States faces. A perfect example is the
spread of disease around the world -- AIDS in Africa. The Vice
President gave a major address to the United Nations in January of
this year, in which he for the first time indicated that the spread of
AIDS in Africa poses a long-term national security threat to the
United States. Why? It's not just a humanitarian issue that's at stake
here, it's the fact that a whole generation of young African leaders
is being wiped out by a disease, and that could accelerate instability
on that continent. And we consider Africa to be important.
There are issues of nuclear terrorism that have to be dealt with.
There are issues of the environment, global warming -- issues that
threaten our children and grandchildren -- that a good President, a
forward-looking President, needs to address. You can't just deal with
the issues of nuclear security and pretend that by dealing with these
issues we've somehow been able to address all of the long-term threats
that the United States faces.
We are in a unique position in our history. The United States is, by
far, the strongest power in the world, and a power that most countries
still look to for guidance and advice and counsel and leadership. In
this unique posture, we have an opportunity to help address these
issues that are going to affect our children and grandchildren, and
that's why it's important to engage in these global issues. And we're
not just sounding an alarm. All one has to do is look at the threats
on the Asian subcontinent, for example -- Kashmir. One only has to
look at the threats that Taiwan faces from China. One only has to look
at the evolution of the peace process in the Middle East and what will
flow from that process; the consequences to American security from
ethnic conflicts and hatreds; the spillover from the Cold War that has
now given the United States more challenges to address; just this
year, the spread of information technology and the opportunities and
challenges it presents. These are all issues that a 21st century
American leader is going to have to address. Al Gore has shown the
leadership and the ability to not only think about these issues, but
to develop new ideas and ways to address them.
Q: On those lines, you've mentioned several times that Gore has the
background in foreign affairs that you say Bush lacks. What do you see
as the current administration's key foreign policy successes, and
could you talk a bit about what role Vice President Gore played in
achieving them?
GINSBERG: Well, first of all, the Vice President has been a principal
on the National Security Council of the United States. In addition to
his 30 years of experience in Congress and the Senate on arms control
issues, he conceptualized the binational commissions that were formed
between the United States and South Africa, the United States and
Egypt, and the United States and Russia. What were the purposes of
these binational commissions? This is the type of work that goes on
behind the scenes that is not trumpeted in the media that shows the
sheer intellectual capacity and commitment of the Vice President to
address issues that are important to the United States in the long
run. For example, on our binational commission with South Africa, he's
helped accelerate market reform to help open up markets for the United
States and to help the South Africans transition from apartheid to
democracy. The same in Egypt. He has focused his efforts to help open
up the Egyptian economy for foreign investment to help stabilize
Egypt, to bring more foreign investment, and ensure that America finds
a real role to play in the Arab world in helping to address issues of
economic development and prosperity. His track record on his role in
the binational commission with Russia: he not only helped accelerate
the denuclearization of nuclear threats to the United States through
this commission work, but worked hard with a vast number of Russian
officials and civil society to help accelerate the development of
market reforms in the country. So those are important achievements.
But he has worked hard, too, to close the gates of war around the
world. That has been the unsung success of this administration,
whether it be in Northern Ireland, in Haiti, on the Korean peninsula,
in the Middle East, this administration has doggedly pursued the
process of peace where ethnic conflict and civil strife threaten to
boil over into national threats to the United States. We have
effectively ended genocide and ethnic conflict in Africa and in
Europe. This administration is very proud of its record of helping to
stop the genocide that was taking place in Bosnia and in Kosovo, as
well as in Africa in Sierra Leone. We could have done better, clearly,
in Rwanda -- all of us admit that that was a policy that was
ineffective. We worked hard to end the strife in East Timor. This is
the hard, slogging work of diplomacy that this administration has a
great track record on and which the Republicans only criticize, since
they've never come up with any better approach.
Q: Which of those has the Vice President taken a leading role in?
GINSBERG: In every one of them. In every one of them.
Q: You made a couple of references earlier to National Missile
Defense. What is the Vice President's view on whether or not the
United States should proceed with the development of an NMD system?
GINSBERG: The Vice President has clearly stated that he believes that
the United States faces a missile threat from rogue states, and not
only from rogue states but also from terrorist organizations, and the
United States needs to have an effective security deterrent to deal
with those threats in the years to come. But he believes that there
are four factors that need to be addressed before making a decision on
National Missile Defense.
First of all, the technical feasibility of the system. There's no
point in having the American taxpayers spend billions of dollars on a
program that is technically not feasible. No one knows yet the
feasibility of such a program -- whether it would be a land-based
system or a Star Wars-based system as the Republicans favor, but
that's the first factor. The second factor is the threat assessment.
The third is the effect that a deployment will have on arms control
and our alliance system abroad, and so that has to be taken into
account. The fourth factor is the cost. This is the American
taxpayer's money. We have to make sure that when we spend their money,
the money should be spent wisely and in a way that accomplishes the
objective. We're not prepared to do what the Republicans and George
Bush favor, which is to arbitrarily decide, before there has been any
effective determination of the feasibility of the project, to spend
$140 billion -- which would break the back of our budget -- on
National Missile Defense. The threats that they claim that their
system is going to address are threats based on a Cold War mentality
that no longer is applicable. But what the Vice President has said is
that National Missile Defense must deal, not with old threats, but
with the new threats that we face.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)